The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Slightly confused - Tort - injury caused by claimant himself?

I am confused by a problem:

A runs into a bank, as a joke, and orders every to get to the floor as 'this is a bank raid' and he is brandishing a toy gun. B didn't see the gun, but was scared for his life so he threw himself to the floor and fractured his knee.

What area of tort law governs this situation? Is it Wilkinson v Downton?
Reply 1
Avatar for Clip
Clip
19
Dude - it's assault.
Original post by Clip
Dude - it's assault.


It's assault? So he apprehends the imminent application of force, so he throws himself to the floor? So you would say assault but reduce damages for contributory negligence? Also, maybe we can apply Protection From Harrassment Act 1997 for these practical jokes?

Thanks, and sorry I am very bad at tort law, but strangely find things like land and trusts quite easy... :s-smilie:

EDIT : OH I get it now. It's an assault; but you use Stephens v Meyers to say that in order for the assault to be made out, the defendant must have actually had the means of carrying out the apprehended threat. Here, they only had water pistols, so no means of carrying it out. But B didn't see the water pistols...
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 3
Avatar for Clip
Clip
19
Original post by suffocation1992
It's assault? So he apprehends the imminent application of force, so he throws himself to the floor? So you would say assault but reduce damages for contributory negligence?

Thanks, and sorry I am very bad at tort law, but strangely find things like land and trusts quite easy... :s-smilie:


Well - I'd def say it's assault. The injury can be battery if you can make out the facts. From Scott v Shepherd in the 1700s, it was clear that you don't have to actually harm someone yourself. D threw a firework into a marketplace, and various people threw it from one to another until it hit someone in the face and blew up. D was liable.
Not that it requires it, but just to add, Scott v Shepherd also established that actions in the heat of the moment don't break the chain of causation, and throwing yourself to the floor in such a way is definitely a 'heat of the moment' decision.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you